From today’s Crikey email:
It would be quite a challenge to give an award to the strangest media beat-up of this election year, but the revelations that the ACTU are actually running a political campaign would have to be in the running. Still, it’s given the Government a chance to increase the noise level of its “Rudd is a captive of the unions” theme.
There’s an unexamined premise in commentary about this tactic of the Government – that unions are wildly unpopular. But how true is that? Unfortunately, there is no time series data on union sympathy. But there are three large-scale surveys conducted this decade that reveal some fascinating results.
The most recent was conducted by the Government’s own Office of the Employee Advocate in 2004 – a “freedom of association survey”. The survey involved 3156 interviews, with the majority of the sample drawn from non-unionised employees. Employees were surveyed across all 17 industry classifications, and questions were scrutinised by both the ACTU and the ACCI.
The survey found that 76% of all employees (and 63% of non-union members) valued the presence of a union in the workplace.
In 2003, the Australian Survey of Social Attitudes, a very wide-ranging survey coordinated by ANU, found that 46% of respondents (n=4270) felt that unions should have less power. Interestingly, 70% felt that the mass media should have less power, and 62% thought big business should have less power.
The University of Sydney conducted a poll of 1100 respondents in 2001 on behalf of the then Labor Council of NSW:
It found that:
* A majority, 52%, of people agree with the proposition that “I’d rather be in a union” (up from 44% two years ago).
* Only 14% of Australians now agree that “Australia would be better off without unions” (down from 23% in 1999).
* And 56% of respondents agreed that “management has more power than unions” (up from 53% two years ago).
It’s also worth remembering that the majority of unionists are in the public sector and the Dean Mighells of the world, far from battering down old ladies’ doors, are really the residual face of the old unionism. Older voters may remember union militancy and frequent strikes, but both have been in very short supply since the Accord was introduced in 1983 – and a voter born in that year would now be 24.
Of course, these surveys probably measure more about the workplace than the political perception of unionism. But, in the absence of a realistic union militancy bogey for many voters, outside those who are predisposed against unionism anyway, the Government’s attack has most salience because it suggests Labor is captive of a special interest group.
But, conversely, probably the most powerful reason for opposition to WorkChoices is the perception that the Government gave big business what it wanted, instead of striking the balance Kevin Rudd quite cleverly keeps talking about.
Update: In comments, Robert draws attention to more data and Andrew Norton links to an article he wrote with the AES data from 87 to 04.
Further update: Via Kapunda in comments, a very interesting Nielsen question mentioned by Shaun Carney in The Age:
the response to the question about unions having too much power under a Rudd government cited at the start of this piece was: agree 38 per cent, disagree 53 per cent, don’t know 9 per cent.
They have to be relevant before they can be unpopular.
There is still a significant amount of sympathy with unionism in the abstract. But the labo(u)r movement has done very little for decades to promote the value of collectivism. Ergo it is a lazy target for a shrill government.
The paradox is as the union movement continues to weaken, the government’s attack is less apposite than ever; but there are more people ignorant of unions altogether, on whom such an attack might work.
If the unions are so popular how come less than 20% of Australian workers are members of them. Exclude the public sector and the figure drops much further.
Don’t you ever tire, Mark, of being an apologist for these dummies? Does it give you an aura of being ’socially concerned’ or what?
If Labor is so independent of the unions how come so many of its leading members (Crean, Combet, Jenny George, Martin Ferguson etc) are ex-ACTU hacks? Who in Australia do these people represent?
You state, as an appendage unrelated to earlier remarks:
“But, conversely, probably the most powerful reason for opposition to WorkChoices is the perception that the Government gave big business what it wanted, instead of striking the balance Kevin Rudd quite cleverly keeps talking about”.
This is an argument? A statement? A deception?
And your final point is the important one, here. Far from Rudd being the union’s puppet, I think the fruitful point to all is that the Government is doing a huge favour for its mates in big business with the WC legislation.
I think this point will be driven home in the pre-election advertising.
Harry there is an obvious distinction between not hating unions and loving them. The figures quoted by Mark offer some evidence of people liking unions and comprehensivley debunk the notion that the Australian public are pathological union haters in the John Howard mold.
What Chris said.
Harry, I’m not denying that there are unionists in the Labor Party and unions affiliated to the Labor Party! That’s another shocking revelation with the same degree of surprise value as the ACTU wanting to see WorkChoices gone and Howard defeated.
If you cared to consult the published research on the drop in unionisation, you’d find that some people have used regression analysis to estimate the composition of causal factors in accounting for union decline. If you take the ideological blinkers off, that might give you some answers to the question – and two major factors are anti-union labour laws and the end of management acquiescence in unionisation and the free rider effect with enterprise bargaining. Stuctural change in the labour market is another large contributor. As is the failing of some unions to organise effectively.
As I said, there are some people in the community with a vehement hatred for unions. But they’re very unlikely to be swinging voters. A majority of the community has a broadly positive view of unions. As I said again, the context for these surveys is more likely to be industrial than political, and it would be interesting to research political opinions (and I don’t discount, as I also said, the negative that Labor may face through perceived closeness to the unions – but don’t discount either the greater unpopularity of big business and its perceived closeness to Howard). But I really don’t think unions are the bogey that many seem to assume.
Thank you Mark! Finally some figures we can work with. As I noted at Troppo I asked Matt Price yesterday if he knew of any hard data, as opposed to anecdote, we could use to determine public attittudes to unions and he told me I should “get a PhD” if I wanted to know that. Hee. My HECS/HELP account is already groaning under the strain so I’m glad you’ve saved me the further expense.
*filing this away for next blog v MSM stoush*
Most people in Australia are not members of Amnesty International, the Red Cross or the RSPCA. Is that a sign the most Australians disapprove of their existence and don’t support their goals? Most Australians are not regular, or even occasional church-goers, so should we conclude they are anti-religion?
Unions have always suffered from the free-rider problem, whereby non-members get the benefits of Collective Agreements negotiated by unions. Non-members could expect to benefit from the assumption that someone else will join the union, so why not save your money? Award conditions have been the legacy of people joining unions in the past, but once those conditions are written down it becomes less urgent to join a union in the present.
Indifference can be every bit as deadly to an organisation union as outright hostility. However when unions run surveys, ballots or petitions calling for employers to negotiate Union Agreements, the numbers of people who approve of union representation far exceed the numbers of actual union members in the workplace.
Many organisations frown on union membership as some form of disloyalty which means workers fearing for their jobs or wanting promotion decline the opportunity.
I think the union bogeyman is less powerful due to the almost non-existence of strikes and the fact that the connection between unions and ALP is well known. Because a system doesn’t change unless new information is introduced – none of the Liberals comments are new and therefore won’t change the situation.
The Kirribilli furore is not really about whether the Liberal Party should have paid more – it is to stick in the voters’ mind the image of the Howard and the captains of industry eating canapes and drinking wine with a Harbour view whilst workers suffer under workchoices.
Rudd’s pitch about “balance” is only reinforced by this.
For Harry’s benefit let’s turn it around:
Is an equally valid proposition. Why is this given respect, but not the other? And before you suggest it’s the Dean Mighells that make the difference, transpose in Ray Williams, Christopher Skase, etc.
It would seem there are Liberal supporters of collective barginning but they find it only acceptable on their side of politics – how does that pass the fairness test?
Harry, only 4% of people are on unemployment benefits, but I’m sure a majority would think they’re a Good Thing to have, just in case they (or a loved one or family member) suddenly find themselves out of work. Destitution isn’t a good look in the Lucky Country.
Many people might not find unions directly relevant to their lives, but I suspect they have enough nous to understand who has won them sick pay, public holidays etc. over the years, and that unions also provide a counterweight to the unfettered power of business interests. In this way, unions are part of the social safety net that mitigates the excesses of a capitalist market economy. You don’t have to be a union member to think they are a Good (or at least Useful) Thing.
I’m sure the public also believes that unions need to be shown their place and told to stay there – and the same should apply to ACCI, AIG, the Master Builders Association, and any other number of lobby groups that currently have govt’s ear (and maybe other body parts too).
AS Ive said before – in the “not hating” unions are the section of the workforce who arent members, but rely on union negotiated EBAs for their yearly increment. Ive worked with hundreds of such people.
Otherwise known as “non-unionists”, they arent very politicisied, and are generally indifferent towards unions – but start to take notice when it looks like unions might be done away with (oh shit, am I going to have to start thinking about my own conditions etc, and do it meself?)
I think Serfchoices is worryin this group a lot more than the right would like to beleive.
They arent anti-unionists at all – they’re non-unionsts, and easily double the better known figure of 25% union membership when you ask – what % of workers actually rely on union negotiated agreements?
On the “rather be” survey, acirrt summarises the data from 1996, 1997, 1999 and 2001 here (pdf), and a speech by John Robertson discusses some of the results from the 2005 survey here.
… and the 2007 survey is mentioned here.
This is just another example of how the question leads to the response. i see the benfits that unions have had in OH&S, pay etc and as an employer I don’t give a toss if my employees want to join a union.
The questions that were not asked and would illuminating are such as –
What goods and services do you think a Union should provide?
How much would you be willing to pay to be a member of a union?
Why aren’t you a member of a union?
Do you think that Unions should have more votes at ALP National Confrence than ordinary ALP rank and file members?
Should the Parliamentary ALP Parties be subject to specific direction by the ACTU and State equivalents or retain their current quazi-independence?
If you were/are a union member, would you be happy with membership monies being used to support the ALP and socialist political activity or spent on member services?
“My HECS/HELP account is already groaning under the strain so I’m glad you’ve saved me the further expense.”
Off topic: Amanda, a PhD is on the Research Training Scheme – you don’t have to pay more HECS to do it, if I understand the system correctly.
On topic (sort of): you can count one more union member. My partner just joined one of ‘em. Me, not so much, since I’m not employed as such at the moment.
“Most people in Australia are not members of Amnesty International, the Red Cross or the RSPCA. Is that a sign the most Australians disapprove of their existence and don’t support their goals?”
Well it’s certainly a true sign in my case, but I take your point, I should not project.
Extremely unpopular among the bourgeois mandarins of the parliamentary ALP.
Thank you, Adam
I’ll file that info away for … uh… a year or so maybe …
Razor: Those are very good questions.
Referring to Simon Crean et al, Harry asks “Who in Australia do these people represent?”
The answer I would have thought is obvious: in parliament they represent the people who elected them. Prior to their election they represented organisations to which millions of Australians choose to belong, at considerable personal cost. What other organisations in the country can claim anything like the same support? To anyone but a blinkered ideologue, trade unions have an important role to play in Australian society.
On the matter of community attitudes towards unions, I recall reading about research years ago which found that most trade union members agreed with the following two statements:
- Trade unions have too much power
- My trade union doesn’t have enough power at my workplace.
If people till hold these kinds of views it would explain why they could regard the presence of a union at their own workplace as a positive thing while still distrusting the faceless ‘unions’ in society at large.
those views are probably held because people have an intrinsic understanding of the effect of unions. unions allow some workers to extract rents at a cost to the general public. it should come as no surprise then that employees want the union at their workplace to be powerful but unions elsewhere to be weak.
The fact is that unions play a very important role in society. Without unions, most Australians would not be enjoying reasonable salaries and a decent standard of living, including those people who are not union members (including me) and who are anti-union and pro-Howard. Unions have created both official and unofficial standards for employment conditions in this country that pervade just about every industry. That is, until Howard legislated to enable a reduction in these conditions.
But the question I find myself asking is: Why isn’t anyone talking up the BENEFITS of unions?
Labor doesn’t do it and even the ACTU doesn’t do it, at least not to the extent that they should. Somehow, Howard has been allowed to paint unions as militant, thuggish, power-hungry, un-Australian forces of evil. Why? Any thinking person can see that unions are nowhere near the threat that Howard claims and actually have many important benefits. After all, most other sectors of our community have their collectives, such as business councils, employer groups, and other societies and associations. Why can’t employees also gain a voice and some representation?
Labor are trying to distance themselves from unions and in so doing, they are legitimising Howard’s claims that they are bad. Otherwise, why else would Labor try to distance themselves? What I think that Labor needs to do is actually start pointing out some of the positives of unionism. They need to say that unions have a place in our society because some workers need representation, but Labor is about creating the fairest situation for both the employer and employee when it comes to negotiating working conditions. By speaking up for unions in a calm and reasonable manner, they will show Howard for the hysterical, fear-mongering fool that he is.
As long as they try to run away from unions, Labor are simply supporting Howard’s demonisation of unions.
I also think, as some of the surveys suggest, that people are not so anti-union as Howard is assuming. And since Workchoices, I suspect that many people have rediscovered the beneficial role that unions can play.
Howard only brought in Workchoices in order to destroy unions. His continued demonisation of them only supports the obvious hatred that he has for them. Australians are simply pawns in his political game-playing. Why doesn’t Labor point this out??? After all, right now, when Howard is running around bashing up on unions as much as he can, is a perfect time to point out Howard’s irrational hatred and the lengths he will go to destroy something, even if it means that a lot of Australians end up suffering in the process.
Also, it is worth pointing out that Australians embraced and voted for Bob Hawke, who went straight from being president of the ACTU to Prime Minister. This was despite a period in the 1970s when there really were some examples of unions behaving like militants. Surely if Australians really hated unions or thought they were a very bad influence on our society, then they wouldn’t have voted for a PM who was an ex-union official.
And now, twenty years later, with no major problems coming from unions, including during the previous Labor government, what possible reason could people have to hate unions or at least think that they are bad?
The answer of course is that this would only happen if they actually believe Howard’s demonisation of them, which is built on a stack of lies, misrepresentation, and exaggeration.
Someone should conduct a full survey of current attitudes to unions. I’m sure it would be very interesting.
G’day Amanda,
Your questions on the Matt Price blog were…well priceless.
I enjoy his take on things and find he usually contributes something different to the debate. However I could not believe his answer to your questions on the perception of unions.
Call me naive – but I honestly thought the political pundits did research, but it was clear from Matt’s response to you that they are mere regurgitators of corridor gossip and the daily talking points.
It felt like that moment in the movie, Truman Show, when he was joyously sailing to freedom and then hit the wall, realised the whole thing is a farce and the joke is on him. Absolutle shattered. Now I am just angry.
The unions worth there salt will have to step up to the plate if this present Goverment is returned at the end of this year. There are some in secret looking forward to this
Recently Newcastle was effected by a very bad weather event,and apart from emergency service people and others like that ,electricians or linesmen were called onto the scene.Emergency service people come from all sorts of backgrounds and the humble and helpful electricians came from interstate.Is Mighell so bad!? And will emergency service people feel adequately compensated!? Some peoples memories are really bad here..preferring the yes no approach rather than run through examples that can be SEEN.Being a unionist or not,when the luck has run out..that is when the value of a individual or organization is worthy.The best reason,but never parried for unionism is it is in Australia s interest to always have organized national labour and voluntary groupings.
Yes the dog that smells its own breath all the time is dead .
Supernova, yes, I agree with you – the ALP is far too much on the back foot with regard to unionism. They’re letting the Libs frame the debate. I suspect this has something to do with Rudd himself.
And thanks, Robert, for the info on the later ACIRRT surveys. I had a feeling there were some, but couldn’t find anything on the web.
I can’t find a survey that asked the second question, but the ASSDA survey shows the proportion of people who agreed with the first statement:
1987: 70.5%
1996: 61.8%
2001: 47.6%
2003: 43.9%
Andrew Norton links to an article he wrote with the AES data from 87 to 04.
From Shaun Carney’s article in The Age this morning about a question asked in last months Nielsen poll.
“By the way, the response to the question about unions having too much power under a Rudd government cited at the start of this piece was: agree 38 per cent, disagree 53 per cent, don’t know 9 per cent.”
The polls might be closing a bit but I don’t know whether it has anything to do with the government raising the spectre of union power. When you look at the last couple of months of polling in the context of Australian political history, there was really only one way they could go, and that is back towards the government. How far they will go is the question I guess.
I’m not a member of a union anymore. I’ve got no idea which union my slightly bizarre, very specialised work is covered by. The only time I’ve been a member of a union is the 4 years I worked at the closed shop of Coles. Loved the double time and a half on Easter Saturday. At the same time, I can see the benefits of being a member of a union, and I’m very glad that back up is avaiable to so many people.
Contrast this sacrifice to big business insurance companies, who are refusing to pay 75% of water damage claims in the storm ravaged areas because they are arguing the pedantics between “storm water damage” and “flood water damage”.
The example I read was of the emergency and service workers spending long hours helping people in need, paid workers doing much unpaid overtime without a single complaint, then getting back to their places of business/work to find them devastated and having to clean up that damage, then to go home to find that damaged, only to find the next day the big insurance companies won’t pay because they consider storm water damage to be different to flood water damage.
So why are unions demonised by Howard, yet he always makes excuses for insurance, banking and petrol companies, who have no hesitation in ripping off the people?
Because we’re all shareholders now. Blame Keating for that one.
Just how unpopular are the dreaded unions?
Not unpopular enough to do any damage in the latest opinion poll. AC Nielsen shows a 57/43 tpp and a 48/39 primary lead for Labor. Virtually unchanged.
I grew up in a world of wall-to-wall Labor voters, burping and farting union delegates (and that was just my own family). Nowadays, they’d all rather eat razor blades.